What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Iran -- Deal Reached! (1 Viewer)

They said Amiri, who ran a radiation detection program in Iran, travelled to the U.S. and stayed there for months under his own free will.
Click to expand...


- What part of radiation detection would we the US not not be privy to under our current agreement with Iran?

 
tommyGunZ said:
Even worse.  Your thinking and worldview is mirroring right wing conspiracy websites and crazy Republican Tea Partiers, without you even knowing it.

Looking forward to you coming back home to liberalism Sinn.  I've always been a fan up until the conspiracy theory stuff this year.
Click to expand...
Tommy for goodness sake try to reading the information before commenting. You have a link from the AP and one from NBC. The tweet that SF was responding to was from the AP.

 
msommer said:
Did that current agreement exist in 2010?
Click to expand...
He was executed this past week?

It kind of cracks me up reading about the Ollie North transaction with Iran and that this amounts to 'they did it first', this was bad because Iran was an evil country that funds terrorism and exports revolution?

What are we doing here? Iran summarily executes scientists who give us information on detecting a nuclear weapon program which they don't admit exists and which they have promised to never develop?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
He was executed this past week?

It kind of cracks me up reading about the Ollie North transaction with Iran and that this amounts to 'they did it first', this was bad because Iran was an evil country that funds terrorism and exports revolution?

What are we doing here? Iran summarily executes scientists who give us information on detecting a nuclear weapon program which they don't admit exists and which they have promised to never develop?
Click to expand...
He hasn't been seen since the trial. They have announced he was executed. They did not say when that I am aware.

Three scenarios on his whole saga that I can see:

1) He shows up voluntarily, the CIA/SD grill him, he doesn't give what they want or won't give what they want or asks too high a price. He is sent packing

2) He was kidnapped by the CIA, they got what they wanted from him (or not) but decided the Iranians could take out their own trash instead of offing him themselves

3) He was sacrificed (outed) by the US when he wanted to go home as he could still be an asset to the Iranian nuclear program

None of these scenarios have anything to do with the eventual Iranian nuclear deal that Kerry negotiated. Or indeed related to any e-mail leaks from an unsecured server.

 
msommer said:
He hasn't been seen since the trial. They have announced he was executed. They did not say when that I am aware.

Three scenarios on his whole saga that I can see:

1) He shows up voluntarily, the CIA/SD grill him, he doesn't give what they want or won't give what they want or asks too high a price. He is sent packing

2) He was kidnapped by the CIA, they got what they wanted from him (or not) but decided the Iranians could take out their own trash instead of offing him themselves

3) He was sacrificed (outed) by the US when he wanted to go home as he could still be an asset to the Iranian nuclear program

None of these scenarios have anything to do with the eventual Iranian nuclear deal that Kerry negotiated. Or indeed related to any e-mail leaks from an unsecured server.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna rule out no. 2. It's pretty clear from Hillary's own emails (sounds like it should have been classified frankly) that he was free to come and go. She had no reason to lie in her own emails to her own staff.

- If you read the article from the AP what happened is that the Iranians held his family under some threat:

U.S. officials at the time told the AP that Amiri was paid $5 million to offer the CIA information about Iran’s nuclear program, though he left the country without the money. They said Amiri, who ran a radiation detection program in Iran, travelled to the U.S. and stayed there for months under his own free will. Analysts abroad suggested Iranian authorities may have threatened Amiri’s family back in Iran, forcing him to return.
Click to expand...
He returns to save his family and the Iranians stick him in a hole for a while and then they just execute him. This sends a very strong message to anyone else willing to "cooperate" under the current agreement much less the prior situation where the Iranian position was there was nothing to hide anyway. There obviously was and is now as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm gonna rule out no. 2. It's pretty clear from Hillary's own emails (sounds like it should have been classified frankly) that he was free to come and go. She had no reason to lie in her own emails to her own staff.

- If you read the article from the AP what happened is that the Iranians held his family under some threat:

He returns to save his family and the Iranians stick him in a hole for a while and then they just execute him. This sends a very strong message to anyone else willing to "cooperate" under the current agreement much less the prior situation where the Iranian position was there was nothing to hide anyway. There obviously was and is now as well.
Click to expand...
So, the US should have sent in a SEAL team for this guy's family to extract them? Because it worked so well for Jimmy Carter?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
No of course not. This guy knew what he was doing when he left and what the Iranian regime would do. The whole thing is tragic and awful.
Click to expand...
But it seems he went back because they were going to harm his family...just brutal. 

Does the United States do this to folks here? I hear a lot of foul things but this isn't usually one of them. Lawyers here in the States seem to be able to root out a lot of bad things the Government does and put a stop to it or call attention to it. 

 
Ministry of Pain said:
But it seems he went back because they were going to harm his family...just brutal. 

Does the United States do this to folks here? I hear a lot of foul things but this isn't usually one of them. Lawyers here in the States seem to be able to root out a lot of bad things the Government does and put a stop to it or call attention to it. 
Click to expand...
No, we don't, we have due process. Yes, we would try a spy for treason, but we just released one spy, Pollard after he served only a fraction of his sentence. That's just one example of how we're an abundantly fair nation.

The point here is that this scientist worked on radiation detection. Under our agreement we are supposed to have all information on the conduct of Iran's nuclear program, including information on radiation levels. To me this is Iran clearly working to keep their activities secret and to keep their scientists from cooperating with international observers or defecting, though again Iranian scientists shouldn't be needing to "defect" at this point because after all we're all out and above board now, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
No, we don't, we have due process. Yes, we would try a spy for treason, but we just released one spy, Pollard after he served only a fraction of his sentence.

The point here is that this scientist worked on radiation detection. Under our agreement we are supposed to have all information on the conduct of Iran's nuclear program, including information on radiation levels. To me this Iran clearly working to keep their activities secret and to keep their scientists from cooperating with international observers or defecting, though again Iranian scientists shouldn't be needing to "defect" at this point because after all we're all out and above board now, right?
Click to expand...
Yeah but not so much. You were smiling or joking with that last sentence I'm assuming. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Tommy for goodness sake try to reading the information before commenting. You have a link from the AP and one from NBC. The tweet that SF was responding to was from the AP.
Click to expand...
Right - and SF's instant reaction was to link Hillary. Just like Cotton and Rush and Hannity and Trump etc. 

 
JaxBill said:
More news on Stuxnet - Iran admits it's having problems controlling the worm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0092706606.html
Click to expand...



 


Retired general pleads guilty in Stuxnet leak case


A former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has pleaded guilty to making false statements during an investigation into a leak of classified information about a covert cyberattack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright entered the plea at a hearing Monday before U.S. District Judge Richard Leon. When Leon asked if Cartwright understood the charge, he said: "I do, sir."

The offense carries a maximum of five years in prison, but Cartwright's attorney told the judge that the government and defense counsel had agreed on a recommended sentence of no more than six months. He is scheduled to be sentenced in January, and it will be up to Leon to decide the sentence.

Cartwright told investigators that he was not the source of classified information contained in a book by New York Times journalist David Sanger, according to charging documents unsealed by prosecutors.

Neither the book nor the classified subject is identified in court papers. But Sanger has written in his book, "Confront and Conceal," about a covert cyberattack on Iran's nuclear facilities and the use of a computer virus called Stuxnet to temporarily disable centrifuges that the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

The charging documents also say Cartwright misled prosecutors about classified information shared with another journalist, Daniel Klaidman.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland announced the case on Monday.

Officials say Cartwright will make an initial appearance in federal court in Washington on Monday afternoon.

Prosecutors say Cartwright was charged via criminal information, a document that is filed with a defendant's consent and that signals that a plea agreement has been reached.

Gregory Craig, an attorney for Cartwright, had no immediate comment, but his office said he would issue a statement later Monday.

Cartwright, 67, was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 until 2011, and was considered a key close adviser to President Barack Obama. A former fighter pilot, the Marine general was known for his expertise in the more highly technical areas of cyberwarfare and America's nuclear enterprise.
 
The New York Times reported in 2012 that Cartwright was a crucial player in the cyber operation called Olympic Games, started under President George W. Bush.

The Times had said that Obama ordered the cyberattacks sped up, and in 2010 an attack using a computer virus called Stuxnet temporarily disabled 1,000 centrifuges that the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

Congressional leaders had called for a criminal investigation into who leaked the information, and some Republicans said senior administration officials had disclosed the details of the cyber operation to bolster the president's national security credentials during the 2012 campaign. Obama, for his part, said he had zero tolerance for such leaks.

The Justice Department's investigation into the disclosure of classified information was one of several national security leak probes conducted during the Obama administration, including ones involving AP and Fox News.
Click to expand...
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/retired-gen-james-cartwright-charged-with-making-false-statements
 
 
 


‘Obama’s favorite general’ pleads guilty in leak probe


... By early January 2013, Cartwright knew he was in trouble and resigned from the Defense Policy Board, citing health reasons and the “press of business.” In June of that year, NBC News first reported that Cartwright was the target of the leak investigation.

But the investigation dragged on for three more years, in part because of the highly sensitive subject matter, information that the U.S. intelligence community (and White House officials) were loathe to confirm. At one point, informed sources tell Yahoo News, the State Department and the White House even asked the Justice Department to delay the case until after the U.S.-Iranian nuclear agreement was finalized, fearing that a public confirmation of Stuxnet (and the U.S. collaboration with the Israelis) would jeopardize the negotiations.

In the end, special counsel Rosenstein and Justice Department lawyers chose to thread the needle, charging Cartwright only with making false statements to the FBI about what he told Sanger and Klaidman, but avoiding any reference to the nature of the classified information he disclosed and confirmed. For his part, Cartwright has told friends what many expected would be a major part of his defense: He only spoke to the journalists in the first place because it was his “understanding” the White House wanted him to — in part to wave them off false (and potentially damaging) classified details from another source. It was a defense he appeared to allude to in a statement released today.

...
Click to expand...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obamas-favorite-general-pleads-guilty-in-leak-probe-002646501.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
 


https://www.yahoo.com/news/obamas-favorite-general-pleads-guilty-in-leak-probe-002646501.html
Click to expand...
A member of the administration’s Defense Policy Board, however, described the Stuxnet leak as “very damaging.” 

“Clearly what was going on here was a method and it should have been protected,” said former California congresswoman Jane Harman. “I think it’s had devastating consequences.”
Click to expand...
Why on earth would he leak the workings of the Stuxnet virus?  Did he not understand the damage it would do?

 
cstu said:
Why on earth would he leak the workings of the Stuxnet virus?  Did he not understand the damage it would do?
Click to expand...
I don't know what his goal was there.

First of all he denies he revealed anything classified or that he intended to. That seems totally unbelievable.

Secondly he claims that he was trying to save American lives and protect national security. I don't get that at all. I don't understand how or why this reached the press in the first place, but the general claims he was trying to refute wrong information about to be reported or being reported. Diplomatically and in terms of national security this was a problem for us.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JaxBill said:
More news on Stuxnet - Iran admits it's having problems controlling the worm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0092706606.html
Click to expand...
There is a great documentary called 'Zero Days' about the Stuxnet attack.

The way it is described it was essentially similar to the Bay of Pigs, a CIA/NSA project for attacking Iran created under George Bush and handed off to Barack Obama who indeed carried it out, really something.

Its on Shotime but it's wirth finding. 

 
timschochet said:
It will be fascinating to see how Trump handles this now. 
Click to expand...
He said he wouldn't tear it up even after he said he would.

Tearing it up makes zero sense anyway as we have already shipped Iran billions and pulled back the sanctions regime. It took 30 years, the UN and multiple nations to build up that sanctions framework.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton Camp Planned Pro-Iran ‘Echo Chamber’ Push



Plans shelved due to deal's unpopularity


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton drafted plans to aggressively campaign on the comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran after it was announced last summer, but quietly abandoned the tactic as the deal grew more unpopular among the electorate, according to leaked campaign strategy documents.

The plan, outlined by Team Clinton in a July 25, 2015 strategy memo, would have involved deluging the media with positive stories praising the deal and crediting Clinton for originating and pushing it. The plan was shelved as the agreement’s popularity plummeted over the next few months and hardened into broad public disapproval.

Instead, campaign staffers began emphasizing distance between Clinton and the deal’s final terms, even as the former secretary of state publicly states the agreement was necessary, mirroring a broad trend during the election in which Democrats avoid bringing up the deal, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

...

As public opposition to the deal set in, Clinton and her supporters began pointing to differences between her diplomatic positions and what was ultimately in the deal. The White House, on the other hand, pursued an aggressive campaign to promote the deal in what senior officials described as a pro-Iran “echo chamber.”

Sources broadly believed to have come from Clinton’s camp have told journalists that Secretary of State John Kerry made several early concessions to the Iranians, including granting Tehran a right to enrich uranium, which Iran was forbidden to do at the time under multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Clinton allies also have highlighted a 2014 interview in which the Democratic candidate called for Iran to have zero enrichment at least at the beginning of any deal, and minimal enrichment thereafter.

In October 2015, after the Iran deal had been met with bipartisan disapproval in both the Senate and House of Representatives, Clinton bashed Iran in a speech attacking the National Rifle Association.

“You know, the NRA’s position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists. There’s no possible discussion,” Clinton said.

Campaign strategists who spoke to the Free Beacon acknowledged that Clinton shifted tactics on Iran, explaining that the deal’s unpopularity has impacted Democratic candidates across the country.

One Democratic strategist familiar with the Clinton campaign’s thinking on Iran told the Free Beacon that Clinton is committed to enforcing the deal and preventing Iran from making progress on the nuclear front.

“As Hillary has repeatedly affirmed, she will watch every detail of the deal like a hawk and will have a policy of ‘distrust and verify,'” the source said. ‘Even more so than [Donald] Trump–who unlike some of his Republican primary opponents, did not commit to tearing up the agreement on day one–Hillary will not be enamored with the deal making or negotiating. She’ll stick to enforcing the deal’s strongest provisions.”

A senior conservative political operative who has been running polls on the Iran deal noted that it is likely to serve as an albatross for Democrats in the upcoming election cycles.

“We poll on this every few weeks to see if the deal is becoming any less radioactive, but it’s as bad as ever,” the source said. “At this point the only question is whether Democrats are going to be doing damage control through 2018 or all the way through 2020.”

“And that’s going to depend a lot on how convincingly Democrats can run away from the deal,” the operative added.

The Iran deal is likely to play a role in the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, according to Nathan Klein, lead pollster and founder of Olive Tree Strategies.

“Republicans were already headed for a good year electorally in 2018, but with the Iran Deal we are now targeting double-digit Senate pick-ups,” he said.

Klein predicted that in 2018, at least 13 of the 25 Democratic Senate seats up for grabs could be competitive. At least 12 of these vulnerable candidates supported the Iran deal and are likely to be faced with questions about it.
Click to expand...
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clinton-camp-planned-pro-iran-echo-chamber-push/?utm_content=buffer5ecaf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZAKARIA: On Iran, negotiations are complicated, but there seems to be one fundamental issue and it's boiled down to this -- the Iranians say you can have lots of inspections, we'll open up all our facilities, but we have to have the right to enrich just like every country that has a peaceful nuclear program does. The Israeli position, as I understand it, is no, zero enrichment, because any kind of enrichment gives them the capacity, the Iranians, to weaponize at some stage, perhaps (INAUDIBLE). Where do you stand?

CLINTON: Well as you know, I worked very hard and led our efforts to get the sanctions to be international that brought Iran to the negotiating table and sent one of my trusted advisors early in 2012 to begin that process of what -- how big will the table be and who gets to sit around it and the like. And I have followed what has been done since then.

This is the real nub of it. Because if you cannot be persuaded that the Iranians cannot break out and race toward a nuclear weapon, then you cannot have a deal. I believe strongly that it's really important for there to be so little enrichment or no enrichment, at least for a long period of time. Because I do think that any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East. I think if the Gulf looks and says, well, if they have any enrichment, they can do this, and then they can do that, and then we're off to the races, we've created a very dangerous situation. But if you can define that "little" in a way that you can convince our partners, not only in the Gulf, but in Israel and elsewhere that it truly is so inadequate a base that you could not move to break out, and if they were making moves toward breakout we would all know and then pursue other kinds of actions. But that's the persuasive case to be made.
Click to expand...
- Former SOS on allowing the Iranians to enrich, something that we the US apparently caved on under SOS John Kerry.

It's hard to understand given Hillary's own statement why we allowed this.

 
Trump foreign policy adviser: Trump will demand changes to the Iran nuclear deal


Walid Phares, one of Donald Trump's foreign policy advisers, says the President-elect is going to demand changes to the Iran nuclear agreement.
During the campaign, Trump said the Iran deal was one of the worst agreements ever negotiated. In a USA Today op-ed in September of 2015 Trump said, "When I am elected president, I will renegotiate with Iran." Republican members of Congress have sharply criticized the deal since it was announced in 2014.
"Ripping up is maybe a too strong of word, he's gonna take that agreement, it's been done before in international context, and then review it," Phares said on BBC radio Thursday.
"He will take the agreement, review it, send it to Congress, demand from the Iranians to restore few issues or change few issues, and there will be a discussion. It could be a tense discussion but the agreement as is right now -- $750 billion to the Iranian regime without receiving much in return and increasing intervention in four countries -- that is not going to be accepted by a Trump administration," he added.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/walid-phares-iran-deal/index.html

- Iran is not doing anything. Why should they? We have no leverage left.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iran Considers Naval Bases in Yemen, Syria


Iran's chief of staff of the armed forces said Saturday that Tehran may be interested in setting up naval bases in both Syria and Yemen, the semi-official Tasnim reported.

The report by Tasnim, close to military, quoted Gen. Mohammad Hossein Bagheri as saying, "Maybe, at some point we will need bases on the shores of Yemen and Syria."

He said "Having naval bases in remote distances is not less than nuclear power. It is ten times more important and creates deterrence."

Gen. Bagheri added that setting up naval platforms off the shores of those countries requires "infrastructures there first."

He said Iran is also able to set up permanent platforms for military purposes in the Persian Gulf and roving ones in other places.

Gen. Bagheri did not elaborate but said "When two thirds of the world's population lives near shores and the world economy depends on the sea, we have to take measures. Though there is a need for the time for these (steps)."

This is the first time that an Iranian military official has spoken of setting up naval bases in another country in the region.

No Middle Eastern country is known to have a formal naval base in another Mideast country.

Iran regularly sends its warships to the Gulf of Aden to fight piracy. It also conducts occasional naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

Iran's warships regularly visit seaports of friendly countries, including a recent visit to the South African port of Durban.

Iran's Supreme Leader have repeatedly supported increasing the power of the country's navy, last year describing the sea as the scene of "powerful confrontation with enemies". saying the future of power is based on powerful presence in the seas.

The country has dozens of warships and light and Kilo-class submarines. It has hundreds of speed boats too, four of which harassed a U.S. warship earlier this year.

Iran is currently helping the Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen and the Syrian government in their fights against the extremist Islamic State group.
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iran-considers-naval-bases-yemen-syria-43790680

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Huh?  Per the IAEA Iran is complying with their commitments.  
Click to expand...
Trump has no basis to breach the agreement right now but also even if he did he has no way to set the clock back. If Trump wants to renegotiate how would he do that? I see no basis and no means to do so. We have given the Iranians what they want, there is no justification but also no carrot and no stick.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Trump has no basis to breach the agreement right now but also even if he did he has no way to set the clock back. If Trump wants to renegotiate how would he do that? I see no basis and no means to do so. We have given the Iranians what they want, there is no justification but also no carrot and no stick.
Click to expand...
Not true.  If Iran doesn't comply with their end of the agreement, sanctions snap back.  There are incentives built in.  

 
 


Iran to work on nuclear-powered vessels after U.S. 'violation' of deal


Iran ordered its scientists on Tuesday to start developing systems for nuclear-powered marine vessels in response to what it calls a U.S. violation of its landmark 2015 atomic deal with world powers.

Nuclear experts said that President Hassan Rouhani's move, if carried out, would probably require Iran to enrich uranium to a fissile purity above the maximum level set in the nuclear deal to allay fears of Tehran building an atomic bomb.

Rouhani's announcement marked Tehran's first concrete reaction to a decision by the U.S. Congress last month to extend some sanctions on Tehran that would also make it easier to reimpose others lifted under the nuclear pact.

...

But under the nuclear settlement Iran reached with the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, it is not allowed to enrich uranium above a 3.67 percent purity for 15 years, a level unlikely to be enough to run such vessels.

"On the basis of international experience, were Iran to go ahead with such a (nuclear propulsion) project, it would have to increase its enrichment level," said Mark Hibbs, nuclear expert and senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

...

Rouhani accused the United States in a letter published by state news agency IRNA of not fully meeting its commitments under the nuclear deal.

"With regard to recent (U.S. congressional) legislation to extend the Iran Sanctions Act ... I order the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to ... plan the design and construction of a nuclear propeller to be used in marine transportation."

Members of the U.S. Congress have said the extension of the bill does not violate the nuclear deal that was struck last year to assuage Western fears that Iran was working to develop a nuclear bomb. The act, Congress added, only gave Washington the power to reimpose sanctions on Iran if it violated the pact.

Washington says it has lifted all the sanctions it needs to under the July 2015 deal between major powers and Iran.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-nuclear-deals-idUSKBN14212X

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Votel made some comments about Iran: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/top-u-s-commander-iran-poses-greatest-global-threat-demands-tougher-action/

Iran poses the "most significant threat" in the Middle East, where its nefarious activities and support for terror organizations have grown since the announcement of the landmark nuclear agreement, according to the top U.S. military commander in the region.

The United States has "not seen any improvement in Iran's behavior" since the nuclear agreement was inked, according to U.S. Central Command leader Gen. Joseph Votel, who warned Congress on Wednesday that the Islamic Republic is boosting its support for militias in Syria and Iraq while building large numbers of ballistic missiles.

Votel, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, opened his remarks by stating "Iran poses the greatest long-term threat to stability in this part of the world."

Growing U.S. concerns about Iran's nefarious behavior since the nuclear agreement have prompted calls from leaders such as Votel to adopt a stronger military posture against the Islamic Republic. President Donald Trump's White House has an opportunity to get tough with Iran as it continues to harass U.S. military assets in the region, according to Votel.

"Through both messaging and actions, we must also be clear in our communications and ensure the credibility of U.S. intentions," Votel stated in his written testimony. "Iran must believe there will be prohibitive consequences if it chooses to continue its malign activities designed to foment instability in the region."

The United States consistently is faced with "a range of malign activities perpetrated by Iran and its proxies in the region," according to Votel, who pointed to interference by Iran in Iraq, Syria, and other areas.

In addition to Iran's "nuclear weapons potential," the country poses several "credible threats," according to Votel. These include its "robust" ballistic missile program, cyber threats, and the continued harassment of U.S. forces stationed in the region.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, also poses a significant risk due to its clandestine efforts to foster terrorism against U.S. allies, according to Votel.

"We must make sure that we are postured for purpose in this region," Votel said. "We must have a credible, ready, and present force."

There is mounting concern that Iran may begin targeting U.S. forces in Iraq, where it has long supported government-tied militia groups fighting against ISIS forces.

While Iranian-backed militias in Iraq have mainly worked to fight ISIS, they could turn their attention to the United States at any time, according to Votel.

"We remain concerned about Iran's efforts to prop up the Syrian regime against the opposition and its desire to exploit Shia population centers to increase their malign influence, not just in Syria, but also in Arab states across the region," Votel stated in his testimony.

"We are watching closely for indications and warnings of decreasing Iranian concern regarding the threat posed by ISIS, leading to a potential shift to targeting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure in an effort to influence a potential long-term U.S. security presence," he said.

Iran also is seeking to foment unrest in Yemen, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. Its growing relationship with Russia poses regional concerns, Votel said.

"Iran fosters instability by funding and promoting a threat network that employs provocation, violence, and covert arms transfers that serve as the stimulants for a range of conflicts across the region," according to Votel. "It complements this subversive arm with conventional military provocation and overt threats to close key maritime sea lanes, especially at critical international economic chokepoints, namely the Strait of Hormuz and the BAM Strait, which puts global political stability and economic prosperity at risk."
Click to expand...
Here's another one (more at link): http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-us-general-says-iran-is-turning-vital-strait-into-militarized-chokepoint/article/2618784

Iran, through its proxy forces in Yemen, is turning a vital international waterway into a militarized chokepoint that threatens freedom of navigation, a senior U.S. commander charged Wednesday.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, said Iran has moved advanced weaponry into Yemen, which threatens ship traffic through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

Votel said the international shipping lanes are being turned into another Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has elaborate shore-based weapons that in a time of crisis could shut down shipping in the Persian Gulf.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
Loneliness - A Big Deal
2
Replies
64
Views
2K
Sammy3469
Sammy3469
Chadstroma
Brain Storm Help with a Youth Football Program
Replies
28
Views
400
Chadstroma
Chadstroma
rockaction
Running Mono, Box Set, and other Vinyl Obscuranta—Limited Numbers For Sale At Fine Locations
Replies
21
Views
1K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top